Wikipedia

BL 12-inch Mk I – II naval gun

The BL 12 inch naval gun Mk I was a British rifled breech-loading naval gun of the early 1880s intended for the largest warships such as battleships and also coastal defence. It was Britain's first attempt to match the large guns being installed in rival European navies, particularly France, after Britain transitioned from rifled muzzle-loading guns to the modern rifled breech-loaders somewhat later than the European powers.

Ordnance BL 12 inch gun Mk I - IIte
On HMS Conqueror
TypeNaval gun
Coastal gun
Place of originUnited Kingdom
Service history
In service1882–1920
Used byRoyal Navy
Production history
Designed1882
VariantsMks I - II[note 1]
Specifications
Mass
  • Including breech:
  • As built: 43 tons
  • Chase hooped: 47 tons
Length328.5 inches (8.344 m) (27.5 calibres)
Barrel length301.7 inches (7.663 m) bore (25.1 calibres)
Shell714 pounds (324 kg)[1]
Calibre12-inch (304.8 mm)
Muzzle velocity
  • 1,910 feet per second (582 m/s) 714 lb projectile, with 295 lb Brown Prismatic powder[2]
  • 1,914 feet per second (583 m/s) with 295 lb brown powder or 88 lb 8 oz cordite size 30 charge.[3]
Effective firing range8,000 yards (7,300 m) at 9° 57'[4]

Mks I and II[note 1] were part steel, part iron. Their barrels were 328.5 inches (8.344 m) (L/27.5) long and the guns used the same charge as the later all-steel models up to Mark VII. Officially, they even had the same ballistic capabilities. However, after some accidents, they were no longer trusted and were withdrawn from sea service.

Development

edit

Context

edit

After the British government returned to using muzzle-loading guns in 1864/5, it was quite content with its muzzleloaders made by the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich. In the mid 1870s the arsenal was probably ahead in 'chambering' guns. A chambered gun had a chamber with a higher diameter than that of its barrel. This allowed a higher charge, but necessitated a longer barrel to 'consume' that charge. The long guns that Krupp tested in Meppen in 1878 and 1879 then proved that muzzle loading had become a dead end.[5]

At the time, the United Kingdom was not without experience in manufacturing breechloaders. In February 1877, the Elswick Ordnance Company had tested its breechloading EOC 12-inch L/23.5. In mid 1878 it had tested its chambered BL 6-inch 80-pounder gun.[6] In December 1878, the EOC's chambered 8-inch breechloader was tested in Woolwich. When EOC became aware of Krupp's 24 cm MRK L/25.5, tested in Meppen in 1879, it started to develop a 9-inch gun of 18 tons.[7] Meanwhile Vavasseur of the smaller London Ordnance Works was busy manufacturing all steel breechloaders.[8]

The Woolwich experimental 43 ton gun

edit

In June 1879, the British government set up a Committee on Ordnance under Maj-general S.E. Gordon. It was to finally decide the muzzleloading vs. breechloading matter. It quickly decided in favor of breechloading and had Charles Younghusband, superintendent of the R.G.F. furnish a design for a 12-inch 43 tons gun. Somewhat smaller calibers followed later.[9] It meant that the arsenal did not follow the usual practice of first testing new developments (breechloading, longer barrels) with smaller calibers. The urgency to switch to breechloading for the Royal Navy's battleships might explain this. By July 1880, a 12-inch rifled breech-loading gun of 43 tons was in advanced state of construction.[10]

Later in 1880, a 43 tons gun was mentioned as being prepared at Woolwich for trial. It was 358 inches (9.1 m) inch long and meant to use a charge of 285 pounds (129 kg) of P2 powder to fire a projectile of 714 pounds (324 kg). Other guns being prepared were a 10.4-inch 26 tons gun and a 9.2-inch 18 tons gun. By then EOC had received an order for 18 BL 6-inch 80-pounder gun and one 43 tons breechloader.[11][12] In December 1880, the 43 tons gun fired two shots at the proof butts with charges of 200 pounds (91 kg) and 250 pounds (110 kg).[13] In March 1881, the Committee on Ordnance was dissolved. By then a single 43 tons gun had been completed and prooved. In April 1881, a new Ordnance Committee was appointed.[12]

The EOC experimental 43 ton gun

edit

On 24 May 1880 the government invited Sir William Armstrong of the Elswick Ordnance Company (EOC) to send a 43 ton breechloader to Woolwich for experiment. Armstrong accepted, but asked for ten months to produce it. Manufacture lasted from June 1880 to August 1881.[14]

Indeed, the Elswick 43-ton was tested at the proof ground at Ridsdale in August 1881. The primary difference between the EOC gun and the Woolwich gun, was in the powder chamber. That of the EOC gun was longer and of a smaller diameter than the shorter wider one of the Woolwich gun.[15] A comparison between the two seemed to favor the Woolwich design.[16]

When HMS Conqueror was launched on 8 September 1881, Trevelyan's story about the EOC experimental guns was repeated. It was also stated that two of these guns would be used to arm Conqueror.[17]

The 43 ton gun Mark I and II

edit

In April 1881, there was another heated debate in parliament about the guns for the Royal Navy. George Trevelyan, Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty assured British Parliament that the new battleships Conqueror (1881), Colossus (1882), Collingwood (1882), and Edinburgh (1882) (ex-Majestic) would all carry the 43 ton gun.[18] Of these, Conqueror would have two 43 ton guns, the others would each be armed with four.

The British government then ordered 10 more guns. In October 1881, the steel tubes for these guns were under construction at Messrs. Firth & Sons in Sheffield.[15]

In May 1881, the new 'Ordnance Committee' endorsed a suggestion by Colonel Maitland, Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factory, for more extensive use of steel in future designs for higher calibers. Maitland also suggested that the breech openings of several guns should be enlarged to admit cartridges of slow burning powder that had the same diameter as the chamber.[19]

Early in 1882, it was decided to make the 12-inch guns on a design very similar to a new design for the 9.2-inch gun. This entailed: Steel coils in front of the trunnion instead of wrought iron ones; a short very wide chamber; a thicker steel core; a barrel that was partly uncoiled near the muzzle. This led to the 12-inch Marks I and II.[19]

In May 1882, Sir William Armstrong of the Elswick Ordnance Company objected to the design of the gun he was about to manufacture by contract. It led to many experts getting involved in the design for the new heavy guns.[20] On 18 August 1882, a committee recommended that only steel should be used in future guns.[21]

Their suggestions were approved by the government in Fall 1882, but by then many guns were in such forward condition, that they could not be changed.[20] Furthermore, the admiralty urgently wanted to complete the above ships, and therefore liked to use the Mark I pattern for six guns which where on order at EOC. On 3 November 1882, the committee reported that this should not be done, because in case of emergency, one could also transfer this type of gun from land service to sea service. In spite of this report, 14 Mark I guns were ordered.[21] A later comment said that at the time that doubts arose with regard to the design and material of these guns, there were five under construction, but that six more were nevertheless ordered to be manufactured.[22]

Characteristics of Mark I and II

edit
 
BL 12-inch Mk I-II

The Mark I and II gun consisted of a steel inner tube strengthened in front of the powder chamber by shrinking on two steel coils. One was made of medium and the other of mild steel. Over the chamber was shrunk a breech piece of coiled wrought iron, and in front of it another coil of iron overlapping the join of the steel coils. A jacket was shrunk over the breech-piece and locked it to the coil in front of it. A steel trunnion was shrunk to the front portion of the jacket and interlocked with it. A steel ring in segments with a steel hoop shrunk over it was in front of the trunnions to give additional longitudinal strength to the jacket.[23]

A notable aspect of the gun was that the breech mechanism was attached to the inner tube. In later models, this would attach to the breech piece.[24]

The gun was chase-hooped to the muzzle with five steel hoops. It was also lined with a steel cylinder extending from the seat of the obturator to a length of 189 inches (480 cm). This liner was secured at the breech end by a steel ring screwed into the inner tube.[25] These are the changes made after the accident on Collingwood. The guns Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 16 were stamped 1A, because they had different breech fittings.[25]

The only difference between Mark I and Mark II was in the trunnions. The Land Service Mark I had traditional trunnions. The Mark II, intended for Sea Service, had ribs, which allowed to mount the guns closer together on a ship. For use on board EOC designed a new type of carriage.[19] However, later on, the 11 Mark II guns were converted for Land Service and were given trunnions as well as being relabeled Mark I.[26]

The gun soon proved to problematic. The designed charge of 400 pounds (180 kg) could not be used, and was first reduced to 290 pounds (130 kg). Even with this charge, the gun jammed after 16 rounds. The charge was then reduced further to 222 pounds (101 kg), which was the charge that made the gun on Collingwood burst, see below.[22]

edit

There were eleven Mark II guns.[27] Ten were installed on the battleships Conqueror (1881) (two), Colossus (1882) (four), and Collingwood (1882) (four). Mk II guns failed in service and were quickly replaced by Mks III. IV and V, with many changes and improvements. The later marks were also mounted on Hero (1885), sistership of Conqueror, and on Edinburgh (1882), sister ship of Colossus.

The two guns for Conqueror (1881) would be mounted in a closed turret.[17] The guns took quite some time to complete. This had to do with a change in the obturator, which necessitated a change in the breech mechanism. In October 1884, a changed breech piece was expected to be ready in three months.[28]

Collingwood (1882) had four Mark II guns mounted in barbette (i.e. open) towers. In March 1885, twenty four rounds were fired from the front barbette guns of Collingwood. The maximum charge used was 295 pounds (134 kg).[29]

Accident on board HMS Collingwood

edit

In 1886 an accident with one of the guns of Collingwood changed the fate of the Mark I/II guns. On 4 May 1886, she sailed from Spithead to test the Vavasseur mountings of her aft 12-inch 43-ton Mark II guns. At the very first shot, with a reduced charge, the left gun burst apart about 8 feet from the muzzle.[30] The right gun fired normally. It led to Collingwood's guns begin replaced by the all steel Mark IV's.[31]

The analysis of the accidents with the Mark II gun and a 6-inch gun that burst noted that after these models had been approved, slower burning powder came in. This gave lower maximum pressures, but also higher pressures forward in the bore. It also thought that the large scale introduction of steel probably contributed to the guns being too weak near the muzzle. The accident on board Collingwood led to the special committee limiting the charge of the Mark I and II guns to 295 pounds (134 kg) of cocoa powder.[32]

The special committee also ordered that future heavy guns (i.e. Mks III and IV) be hooped to the muzzle. The I/II was to remain unaltered, and should only be used in emergency until they were be hooped to the muzzle.[33] This raised some eyebrows, as it would mean that ships would go to sea with the unsafe Mk. II gun. However, it was later pointed out that the particular weakness of the front part of the muzzle of the gun would only lead to accidents like that on Collingwood, i.e. if it was mounted en barbette. Furthermore, that this dangerous situation was allowed while the country was actively preparing for a war with Russia.[34]

Coast defence gun

edit

Mks I, VI and VII were coast defence versions with trunnions for mounting on recoil slides. They were installed in forts in England at Spitbank Fort, No Man's Land Fort and Horse Sand Fort from 1884 onward and were in active service during World War I.[35]

Ammunition

edit

Further development

edit

In Fall 1882, the British authorities decided that only steel should be used for future heavy guns, see above.[20] Immediate successors to the Mark I/II were the all-steel Elswick Mk III of 44 ton and Woolwich Mk IV of 45 ton.[26] These led to the BL 12-inch Mk III – VII naval gun models.

The Mk's III-VII had the same length and chamber capacity as the Mk I/II. They also seemed to have the same capabilities as the MK I/II.[36] The common ballistic tables for Mk I - IV, that were made before the 1886 incident on Collingwood also indicated that the internal construction differences were a mere detail.[37] After the incident on board Collingwood, the Mk I/II's were chase hooped, which increased their weight to 47 tons.[33][26]

However, there are indications that the authorities no longer trusted the MK I/II gun after the Collingwood incident. The Sea Service (S.S.) Mark II guns were made almost identical to the Mk I and relegated to Land Service (L.S.).[23] Their handbook had a warning that the gun should be examined after every 32 rounds.[25] An 1881 warning about the experimental 43 ton gun, had kind of predicted the Collingwood incident and warned against placing the gun in a turret.[38]

See also

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ^ a b Mk I = Mark 1, Mk II = Mark 2. Britain used Roman numerals to designate marks (i.e. models) of ordnance until after World War II. Hence this article describes the first two models of British BL 12-inch guns

References

edit
  1. ^ Mackinlay 1887, p. Table XVI, Pages 312–313.
  2. ^ Mackinlay 1887, p. Table XVI, Page 313.
  3. ^ Ordnance College 1902, p. Table XII, Page 336.
  4. ^ Mackinlay 1887, p. Table XIV, Pages 308.
  5. ^ Orde Brown 1881, p. 66.
  6. ^ Inglis 1880, p. 169.
  7. ^ Simpson 1880, p. 734.
  8. ^ Simpson 1880, p. 42.
  9. ^ War Office 1886, p. 240.
  10. ^ Inglis 1880, p. 185.
  11. ^ Army and Navy Journal 1880, p. 421.
  12. ^ a b War Office 1886, p. 241.
  13. ^ Army and Navy Journal 1880, p. 441.
  14. ^ Hansard's 1881, p. 81.
  15. ^ a b Crispin 1883, p. 214.
  16. ^ Crispin 1883, p. 216.
  17. ^ a b The Marine Engineer 1881, p. 147.
  18. ^ Army and Navy Journal 1881, p. 897.
  19. ^ a b c War Office 1886, p. 241, 242.
  20. ^ a b c War Office 1886, p. 242.
  21. ^ a b Carbutt 1886, p. 9.
  22. ^ a b Hansard's 306 1886, p. 439.
  23. ^ a b Handbook 1891, p. 3.
  24. ^ Handbook 1891, p. Plate I.
  25. ^ a b c Handbook 1891, p. 4.
  26. ^ a b c War Office 1886, p. 298.
  27. ^ Brassey 1886, p. 368.
  28. ^ Hansard's 1884, p. 526.
  29. ^ Brassey 1886, p. 171.
  30. ^ Brassey 1886, p. 367.
  31. ^ Ordnance 1885, p. 230.
  32. ^ Brassey 1886, p. 346, 368.
  33. ^ a b Brassey 1886, p. 369.
  34. ^ Hansard's 308 1886, p. 1513.
  35. ^ Hogg & Thurston 1972, p. 188-189.
  36. ^ Ordnance College 1902, p. 336.
  37. ^ War Office 1886, p. 482.
  38. ^ Army and Navy Journal 1881, p. 963.

Bibliography

edit
  • "Foreign Intelligence". The Journal of the Armed Forces. Vol. XVIII. Army and Navy Journal Incorporated. 1880. pp. 421, 441.
  • "Foreign Intelligence". The Journal of the Armed Forces. Vol. XVIII. Army and Navy Journal Incorporated. 1881. p. 897.
  • Brassey, Thomas (1886). Brassey's Naval Annual. J. Griffin and Co. Portsmouth.
  • Carbutt, E.H. (2 September 1886). "Our Guns". The Pall Mall Budget. The Pall Mall Gazette. p. 8.
  • Crispin, S. (1883). "Appendix 19: Report on European Ordnance and manufactures (30 plates)". House documents. Government Printing Office, Washington. p. 211–.
  • Handbook for the 12-inch B.L. 47 ton gun Mark I, VI, VII. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 1891.
  • "Supply - Navy Estimates". Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Vol. 265. Cornelius Buck, London. 1881. p. 36–98.
  • "Navy Armament of Ships of War - the Conqueror and the Colossus". Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Vol. 293. Cornelius Buck, London. 1884. p. 525.
  • "Navy - H.M.S. Colossus - The 43-ton Guns". Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Vol. 306. Cornelius Buck, London. 1886.
  • "Army Estimates". Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Vol. 308. Cornelius Buck, London. 1886.
  • Hogg, I.V.; Thurston, L.F. (1972), British Artillery Weapons & Ammunition 1914-1918., Ian Allan, London, ISBN 0-7110-0381-5
  • Inglis, T. (1880). "Targets for the Trial of Recent Battering Ordnance". Professional Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers. IV. The Royal Engineer Institute: 169–194.
  • Mackinlay, George (1887). Text Book of Gunnery. Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
  • "Her Majesty's ship Conqueror". The Marine Engineer. Whitehall Technical Press: 147–148. 1 October 1880.
  • Orde Brown, C. (1881). "Lessons to be learned from Krupp's Meppen Experiments of 1879". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XXIV. W. Mitchell and Co., London: 61–80.
  • "Ordnance". General Information Series. Government Printing Office, Washington: 217. 1885.
  • Ordnance College (1902). Text Book of Gunnery. Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
  • Simpson, E. (1880). "Wants of the Navy - Cannon I - III". Naval Organization and Administration: Pamphlet Collection. The United Service. p. 647–54.
  • Vreeland, C.E. (1889). "The Development of the High-Power Gun". General Information Series. VIII. Office of Naval Intelligence: 135–162.
  • War Office (1886). Treatise on the Manufacture of Guns and Text-book of Service Ordnance. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. p. 240.
edit
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to BL 12 inch naval gun Mk I - VII.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BL_12-inch_Mk_I_–_II_naval_gun&oldid=1254494326"